DiscussMormonism.com

I signed up as Alicenchains after reading a thread started by David Waltz. My post has since been deleted and all portions of it in subsequent responses have been edited out, except in the case of Pahoran. Below is his response to mine. It is late here so I will reserve my response for the morning, but I thought you guys might get a kick out of more McGregor brain-dead logic.

Anyway, here is how his posts begins in response to mine:

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
To be fair David, that isn't what James White said. He did not say LDS cannot be trusted because they are LDS. He is saying that these particular LDS scholars cannot be trusted because what they say flies in the face of history. I think that is a valid point to make, especially since LDS frequently challenge the credibility of critics for things as silly as the credibility of their alma mater.

Thank you for that textbook example of the "tu quoque" fallacy.

It's actually two fallacies in a single assertion, since it is a straw man. Latter-day Saints do not "frequently challenge the credibility of critics for things as silly as the credibility of their alma mater." We occasionally point out that certain of our "critics" have made false claims about themselves, such as Walter Martin claiming to have an earned doctorate when in fact he purchased one from a mail order diploma mill, and therefore are not to be trusted when they make assertions that cannot otherwise be checked.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
Nobody here has dealt with the force of White's argument. The "that's not official" response doesn't mean anything, because after all, so little is "official" anyway, yet so much is actually being taught. So it is a distinction without a difference when critics refer to LDS teachings or LDS doctrine. They are not lying. They simply fail to acknowledge the distinction pushed by the apologists.

No, they are not lying. They are just too arrogant, presumptuous, foul-mannered and uncivilised to allow Latter-day Saints to define their own doctrine.

Let's call things by their right names: White's accusation (it's not an argument) is a mere excuse, and a flimsy one at that, to deceive others into thinking that he is the authority on LDS life and teaching.

He is nothing of the sort.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
Non-LDS observers rightly point out that the Mormon Church has taught embarrassing things in its past. For modern Mormons to use this "but that isn't official doctrine" response, is really irrelevant to the non-LDS world.

Perhaps so, but only on the same basis that those allegedly "embarrassing things in its past" must also be "irrelevant to the non-LDS world."

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
In fact, I would bet that even most Mormons wouldn't have a clue about this supposed difference between teachings and "official" teachings.

Perhaps so; but then, most Protestants don't know how many chapters there are in the Book of Jude, either.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
If it is taught in conference or in Sunday school, then the Church is responsible for it. That is how we see it and that is probably how most Mormons see it as well. Only the apologists seem to place such an importance on what appears to be a distinction without a difference.

The one thing you really should see--but apparently can't--is that how you take it upon your arrogant self to see our doctrine is the very height of irrelevance.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
The fact that _enter embarrassing doctrine_ has been taught by the Church is enough for critics to note.

Particularly if they are opportunistic fault-finders; particularly since "has been taught by the Church" and "some Mormon said this once" are categories that you are deliberately collapsing by means of your devious "distinction without a difference."

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
It doesn't matter to them whether or not it has gone through some formal canonization process. It remains a Mormon teaching nevertheless. When did the Heavenly Mother doctrine gone through canonization? Only recently are the apologists reaching a consensus that it is in fact "official" doctrine, and this only because the First Presidency alluded to it in an official proclamation by the Church.

Remarkable how you can skate so close to a valid point and yet avoid admitting it. I admire your skill.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
But for nearly two centuries this doctrine would have been considered by modern apologists as "mere speculation" and perhaps "garbled" doctrine. But we all know this is what Mormons generally accept and believe to be true.

The only "mere speculation" in view is the paragraph quoted.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
Could you imagine if the KKK came out with a statement saying that they believe negros should have equal rights? When forced to deal with a long racist history, the KKK apologists come out and state that none of those beliefs were ever canonized into KKK law and that all past racists in the organization were merely expressing their own opinions. Well, this is how laughable it sounds to non-LDS when LDS apologists try to lessen the impact of historic Mormon teaching. This is especially true when we consider we are talking about alleged prophets and apostles, and not a political organization like the KKK. Teachings mean everything in religious institutions. It defines who they are and what they stand for.

Let's see. You are comparing us to the KKK, but you think it absurd for us to regard you as an anti-Mormon.

Got it.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
Apologists are always saying we should let Mormons tell us what Mormonism teaches, right? Well, weren't the historic LDS leaders Mormons too?

Yes.

"Dr" James White, however, is not.

QUOTE(Alicenchains @ Nov 29 2007, 06:20 PM)
But the interesting thing with Mormonism is that these "garbled notions" are generally based on teachings by Prophets and Apostles. We don't pull this stuff out of nowhere. These are things that have been taught within the Church and by authoritative LDS leaders. This must mean their notions of Mormonism was "garbled" just the same. Are they anti-Mormons too?

There is a difference--a real one, so you will probably try to dismiss it--between believers proclaiming what they believe in good faith, and attackers exploiting those statements for polemical purposes. Perhaps you genuinely can't see it. Perhaps you don't want to see it.

But we do.

Regards,
Pahoran

[mod note] To many points to edit out after we already deleted the others. Pahoran you are dealing with another Kevin Graham sockpuppet. We will leave yours up for now. -Mods
[/code]

McGregor is such an idiotbecause he doesn't even realize how he proved my first point. I said LDS complain about stupid things like a critic's alma mater, just to find ways to damage their credibility. McGregor calls this a straw man!!

Oh really?

McGregor himself refers to White as "Dr" White for a reason. That reason has everything to do with the instituation from which WHite received his doctorate.

So don't give me any of this bullcrap Russell. We know the apologetic line all too well. You guys are constantly moaning and groaning about stupid stuff like this. SO for David or you or anyone to criticize critics when they make perfectly valid arguments that question the credibility of LDS scholars, is just laughable.

At least White based his credibility judgment of LDS scholars on their failure to account for accurate historic facts. You guys would bend over backwards to discredit White because his college wasn't accredited, or because Walter Martin purchased his doctorate from a mill.

I think having a doctorate from a diploma mill is a pretty good indicator of lack of credibliity, which is important to the extent that one must rely on a person's authoritative credibility.

I just have to ask this. When they wiped out your posts and left his, did they delete your comments from his posts?

Oh there is no doubt about that.

I just think it is funny that LDS scholars are placed above reproach, yet these same scholars write up FARMS articles that attack the credibility of critics using whatever angle they can. At least White, in this instance, is basing his credibility judgment on a sound argument. The observation is valid and nobody over there has dealt with it head on. He thinks these scholars cannot be trusted on LDS historical matters because they exhibit an apologetic agenda in rewriting the history. If he can demonstrate this, then let him be heard and allow his argument to be judged on its merits. Dismissing him simply because he is an "anti" is fallacious. Dismissing him simply because his alma mater is unaccredited, is fallacious.

For idiots like Russell McGregor, using a pseudonym is worth mentioning in a review because it draws the readers' attention to the author instead of the author's arguments. This is what this lot over there tries to do first. Avoid the argument. Use smoke and mirrors to make sure your audience despises the critic before they have a chance to comprehend what he or she is actually arguing. That is how bankrupt his position really is. He needs to fish for something, anything to complain about and then paint a picture that suggests, "this prove the anti is probably lying about everything else."

When I criticize Nibley and Gee I provide clear examples of their dishonesty that is entirely relevant to the issue.

So what if White got his doctorate from an unaccredited institution? Apparently, he understands Greek extremely well, and that is really what matters when it comes to New Testament exegesis.

I just have to ask this. When they wiped out your posts and left his, did they delete your comments from his posts?

No, they left them up in his response because they have a special place in their hearts for people like Paharon.

They knew it was me because I make it obvious with the email I use in signing up. I never intend to stay more than an hour. I just want to make points to see how people react. It always produces great discussion material over here.

dartagnan wrote:

I just have to ask this. When they wiped out your posts and left his, did they delete your comments from his posts?

No, they left them up in his response because they have a special place in their hearts for people like Paharon.

They knew it was me because I make it obvious with the email I use in signing up. I never intend to stay more than an hour. I just want to make points to see how people react. It always produces great discussion material over here.

Well, the only purpose that serves is to make them appear sloppy and bizarre. I suppose that if folks don't mind reading a chopped up discussion with "phantom" comments embedded in posts it wouldn't matter.

Call him idiotic all you want, but the man can spell "Pahoran" correctly.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Call him idiotic all you want, but the man can spell "Pahoran" correctly.

I believe that Kevin said his misspelling was intentional.

For what it's worth, Pahoran has taken the same approach with Walter Martin. I'm no fan of Martin's, but it doesn't matter to me where he got his PhD; what matters is whether his approach to Mormonism is honest. I haven't really seen Pahoran deal with that more salient issue with either Martin or White. Why is that?

Runtu wrote:

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Call him idiotic all you want, but the man can spell "Pahoran" correctly.

I believe that Kevin said his misspelling was intentional.

For what it's worth, Pahoran has taken the same approach with Walter Martin. I'm no fan of Martin's, but it doesn't matter to me where he got his PhD; what matters is whether his approach to Mormonism is honest. I haven't really seen Pahoran deal with that more salient issue with either Martin or White. Why is that?

He's likely insane?